National Republican., 1887-10-28

guided men; but they are men, and they are
entitled 10 the same protection that am.
Ihe same constitution is over us all.
L ask the court TO interpose its shield
and protect these men, because / may
need 10 myself. j know no anarchy
abroad In this land which the Ameri-
can people need fear except anarchy
In the administration Of justice. fear that
when anarchy dons the ermine Of Justice
ana administers lynch law, in violation OF
the supreme law Of the land, whether the
prisoners point can be sustained is ques.
tion you can only decide after an examina-
tion Of the record and hearing. Strike
after you hear, but don't strike before you
hear. j pray that the court will, therefore,
award this writ, for, II do not mistake,
there are evidences In this whole record
which will demand the reversal Of the judg-
ment."
Mr.. Attorney General Hunt then ad-
dressed the court In behalf OF the state aud
in opposition to the motion for o writ of
error. ITO warrant the issuance OF the
writ IL must appear,n he said, "from the
record, fret, that there 10 federal cues.
tion involved; and second, that such ques-
ton was raised and decided in the state
court. he was not as well informed as he
would like to be with regard to the exact
points upon which counsel for the petit.
:
ment Mr.. Tucker planted himself squarely
upon the rights which belonged to his
clients, under the fourteenth amendment;
but In the latter part he changed ground
slightly, and insisted that the frat ten
amendments were declarations of individual
rights, and then that they were all com
pfited In the provisions OF the fourteenth
The attorney general opposed this view,
and Insisted THAT tho prohibitions con.
tanned In the first ten amendments to the
constitution are limitations on the powers
OF the federal government and not upon the
states. So far as petitioners rely upon any
thing contained In those amendments they
can have no standing In this court. The
fourteenth amendment is equally foreign to
any right, privilege, or Immunity here
claimed by the petitioners. The fourteenth
amendment declares, mo state shall make
or enforce any law which shall abrldge the
privileges or immunities Of citizens OF the
any person OF life, liberty, or property,
without due process Of law, nor deny to any
person within It's Jurisdiction the equal pro.
lection OF the laws.
"The record will show that the complaint
is not that the state has made or Is enforc-
Ing law which deprives the petitioners of
any Of the privileges or immunities guar
anteed by that section, but that they are
deprived OF rights by an erroneous con-
struction Of the law, placed upon It by the
trial court Of the state.
"Petitioners did not claim In the supreme
court OF the state that the Illinois act of
1874 was repugnant to the constitution,
treaties, or laws Of the United States; nor
that the authority OF the court was exer-
cised under 1t, but that the act was consti-
tutional and valid, and the court exercised
Its power In violation Of that law.
Petitioners were tried In the courts Of the
state under the laws OF the state, and that
constitutes due process Of law. 1t is not
material that this or another court mirht
rulel differently under the law. Due pro.
cess OF law means law Of the land.'n
Turning to the composition Of the jury In
the trial court the attorney general said
that he did not see how the personnel Of the
jury which tried petitioners in this case
could properly be submitted to the court or
considered by 1t In the present proceeding.
This inquiry must be made as to the CON
stitutionality Of the jury law Of the state OF
Illinois, and not as to how state court
may have construed that law. The record
showed, he believed, that on the challenge
OF one juror q suggestion was made by one
OF the counsel for the prisoners that there
was provision In the constitution of ILL
nois-as well as In the constitution OF the
United dStates-guaranteeing to every per.
son trial by an impartial jury. The per-
son at whose challenge that suggestion was
made did not finally sit with the jury that
tried the case. He would submit that in
order to give tho parties a standing In
court the suggestion or objection must
have been made with regard to juror who
actually tried the case, or that by reason OF
the exhaustion OF their peremptory chal.
lenges the petitioners were compelled to
accept an incompetent Juror, and were
thereby irreparably damaged. This ques.
t1on was never raised with regard to any
juror who did actually sit in that case.
The Chief Justice. "Was It not raised In
Sanford's case? think II 10 shown in the
which we have here that il
was raised as to Sanford"
MIR. Grinnell Qnterrupting.) If the court
please, the memorandum is not fair tran
script OF the record"
The Chief Justice. 81 understand that It
is not a complete record, but believe It to
be so stated in this memorandum, which is
q part of the record.n
Mr.. Grlnnell then asked to have the tran
script Of the record produced, as so far as
raised only In the case OF Hanna, who did
not finally sit on tho jury.
Capt. Black. "Tne transcript OF the
record is In our possession. 1t would have
been subject to your call at any time, and
Will say to you now that you can have 1t
and print anything you wish.n
The chief justice then directed that all
the parts OF the record relating to the ques-
tion thus raised should be printed and sub
mitted to the court Tomorrow.
Attorney General Hunt, resuming, said
that the jury law of the state of Illinois was
not attacked by counsel on the other side in
the state supreme court. They stated ex-
pressly (reading from the proceedings) that
1--WE have not thought 1t necessary to attack
the eoonstitutionality Of the law because It
may be given construction which would
make 1t unobjectionable."
"The contention, suppose, wae," said
the Attorney General, "that Judge Gary
bad given to the law construction in VIC.
!ation OF the constitution. / believe 1t to
be well settled and established that this
court will not review tho decision of the
supreme court Of state as to the construc-
lion to be given to its own constitution aud
Its own laws. The jury law Of Illinois has
been the common law all over the United
States and always. The provisions of the
law objected to In this case have been In the
statute books OF the state for thirteen years.
Attorney General Hunt then took up the
case Of the prisoners Fielden and Spies, and
said that he understood 1t would be urged
" SouhoOi ou OtucT biub tlub butyt DeluH
oreigners--Fielden an Englishman and
spies German-were protected by the
treaties between the United States aud
their respective governments; that they
should have immunity because the treaties
provided that citizens of England and
iermany living In the United States shall
have all the rights and privileges guar
lnteed by law TO citizens of the United
States at the time the treaties were ratified.
~ understand u he said, "that this will be
the contention"
The Chief Justice. "In what respect is 1t
said that this violates the citizenship Of
Great BritainY'
Gen. Butler. "They were to have all the
privileges OF Americans at the date OF the
,reaties, and among those privileges we
contend was trial by jury under the laws
hen In force. No laws could be passed
20 change their condition under the or
yanic law-the highest law"
Attorney General Hunt replied that II
III n. a.